Autauga-Prattville Public Library Seeks Dismissal of Federal Lawsuit After Bringing Rules in Line with State Law

The Autauga-Prattville Public Library (APPL) board has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by leftist civil rights activists after the library developed a policy regarding the availability of sexually explicit children’s books.

The motion to dismiss comes after the APPL Board of Trustees recently changed administrative rules that the plaintiffs argued were unconstitutional, vague, and overly broad. The newly amended rules align APPL’s policy with that of the Alabama Public Library Service (APLS) and give the library director the authority to determine whether a book meets the definition of “obscene” or “sexually explicit.”

SEE: ‘Today, Alabamans Won’: State Library Board Approves Changes to Library Book Policy on Sexually Explicit Books

SEE ALSO: Prattville Library Board votes to change rules governing ordering and posting of “obscene” books

APPL has been at the center of controversy since a group of residents complained about the easy availability of erotic and LGBTQ+-affirming books in the children’s section.

After months of duels between supporters and opponents of including books, the entire board was replaced. The board also released a relatively new library director who, after his dismissal, filed a lawsuit against the board that has already been settled.

RELATED: Autauga-Prattville Library Board Settles Lawsuit with Library Director Andrew Foster; All Parties Deny Any Impropriety

The newly formed council also passed a number of policy changes related to the purchase and display of books containing “profanity, sexual conduct, sexual intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender nonconformity.” It also mandated the use of age-specific library cards to ensure that minors could not borrow certain materials.

In response, the library board was sued in federal court, arguing that the policy was unconstitutional and overbroad.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Alabama Library Association (ALLA), the state chapter of the American Library Association, Read Freely Alabama, a group formed in response to the movement in Prattville, and several residents acting on behalf of their minor children.

In addition to claiming that the plaintiff has failed to prove it has sufficient grounds to bring the lawsuit, APPL’s lawyers argue that the case is moot because the provisions challenged in the lawsuit are no longer in force.

“In this action, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory judgment with respect to the challenged rules,” the motion reads. “Specifically, they ask the Court to issue an order ‘prohibiting the Board from enforcing’ the challenged rules and declaring the rules unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. However, once superseded, the challenged rules would not be enforceable, even in the absence of any order from this Court; they are no longer in effect. Therefore, this case ‘no longer constitutes a live controversy with respect to which the Court can provide meaningful relief’ and should be dismissed as moot.”

It continues: “Finally, the Board is compelled by the new APLS rule to consistently maintain its commitment to the new policy in order to avoid losing state funding. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed as moot.”

The motion further states that the plaintiffs’ claim that they face imminent harm because of the board’s changed policies is without merit because they have failed to prove that books they may have sought access to were removed because of the policy.

“Although the complaint discusses Plaintiff’s particular tastes in reading materials in detail, none of the allegations allege with the requisite specificity that the alleged harm is imminent,” the motion continues. “It is insufficient to merely allege that the challenged policies may deprive Plaintiff of the availability of books he wishes to borrow and read (whether because the library may remove the books in the future or ‘refuse to purchase’ them in the first place).

Assuming the application is successful because the APPL board has changed its bylaws to ensure continued state funding, the plaintiff could be forced to sue APLS, which would force the state to defend itself in any further litigation.

To contact the author of this story or to add a comment, send an email [email protected].

Don’t miss out! Sign up for our newsletter and receive our best stories every weekday morning.